It Ain't Over Til It's Over - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: It Ain't Over Til It's Over (/thread-20788.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: It Ain't Over Til It's Over (/thread-20788.html)
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - Farm93 - 11-05-2020
FWIW - One of these two candidates will become America's most supported loser.
If Biden loses he will be the first candidate to ever tally 70+ million votes, and the first to lose with ~73+ million votes.
If Trump loses he will have lost the popular vote twice, and the first to lose an election with ~69 million votes.
Either way someone is going to become America's most popular loser.
It will be hard to lead the nation with such a popular loser lurking in the mix, definitely a tough gig.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - teejers1 - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 08:47 AM)BostonCard Wrote: My guess is that Trump has a high-floor but low-ceilin. If you look at his approval ratings, they are basically identical now (-8.4 net approve - disapprove) as they were in January (-10.3). In fact, Trump's approval ratings are basically flat going all the way back to April 2018, save for a small, temporary bump in disapproval in Jan 2019 (the government shutdown), a small temporary jump in approval in April (rally around the flag) and drop in approval over the summer (COVID second wave), of which he has recovered.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
BC
1. Mick, I admire your tenacity in even bothering to respond to Snorlax, who perfectly encapsulates the back hand of the Elitists who "just know better."
2. The bottom line is we'll never know the outcome of a Trump-Biden battle in a non-Covid world. But I respectfully suggest that those underestimating how economy drives things are mistaken. The Ronald Reagan question to voters back in 1980 - "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" - just pulverized Carter and decided that election. Without Covid - and assuming no other unexpected economic foundation-rattler - there is every reason to believe that most voters would have answered Reagan's question in the affirmative (unlike they did 40 years ago), and voted accordingly. One lasting anecdote informs my opinion on this (apologies if this is a repeat). A young AA Lyft driver was taking me to the airport in New Orleans about a year ago. It was 5:30 a.m., and he shared what he was doing - working 2 regular jobs (flipping houses and driving) and looking to invest in a local bar with some co-investors. I was very impressed with his hustle. And then he offered, out of the blue, that "I know I'm supposed to not like Trump, and I don't want to have a beer with the guy. But he is good for my businesses. Things are hopping." The point is, when things are going well for folks economically, they tend to overlook other flaws, even big ones, in a candidate.
I don't know about a landslide - probably not. But I'm with Mick in thinking Trump wins without Covid, perhaps comfortably.
P.S. Not sure why folks give random polls so much credit, particularly in the Trump political world. Think it's pretty clear that many folks "get" that supporting Trump publicly in any fashion, including polls, can result in derision. So, they just prevaricate . . . and then they vote in private. This is perfectly understandable. What I have a much harder time "getting" is the 30K (or whatever the number is) of people who show up for a Trump rally. There is some degree of Trump adulation out there that is baffling for someone with hardly any (and that may be generous) personally redeeming qualities.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - oregontim - 11-05-2020
(11-04-2020, 11:30 PM)Mick Wrote:(11-04-2020, 08:49 PM)oregontim Wrote: Paraphrasing a quote today I got second hand: "If Biden wins, he will have to govern in Trump's America."
And we all live in Trump's America. Horrible truth.
Three little tiny bits of food for thought with that horrible truth:
- We just elected a doddering old man as President, and a VP who finished 16th in New Hampshire Dem primary and dropped out of the race on December 3. She didn't even make it to 2020.
- Yes, 72 million voted for Biden. 68.6 million voted for Trump, many of whom would have voted for Democrats in the past. I might suggest that instead of reviling the Deplorable Trump supporters, perhaps try to understand why they voted for a lying reality show huckster. And by that, I mean really understanding, not the bumper-sticker BS that gets spouted about Trump.
- While I wouldn't wish a pandemic on anyone -- obviously -- keep in mind that without a once-in-a-century pandemic, Trump likely wins in a landslide.
Mick, thanks for this, all good points. I appreciate this response.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - Genuine Realist - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 11:32 AM)teejers1 Wrote:I'm going to join the chorus of 'Trump wins without covid'. In fact, I believe that one of the reasons for all the nonsense he spouted about Covid was frustration at having some of the genuine progress of the economy under his administration erased by the virus - which, typically, he was too narcissistic to accept.(11-05-2020, 08:47 AM)BostonCard Wrote: My guess is that Trump has a high-floor but low-ceilin. If you look at his approval ratings, they are basically identical now (-8.4 net approve - disapprove) as they were in January (-10.3). In fact, Trump's approval ratings are basically flat going all the way back to April 2018, save for a small, temporary bump in disapproval in Jan 2019 (the government shutdown), a small temporary jump in approval in April (rally around the flag) and drop in approval over the summer (COVID second wave), of which he has recovered.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
BC
1. Mick, I admire your tenacity in even bothering to respond to Snorlax, who perfectly encapsulates the back hand of the Elitists who "just know better."
2. The bottom line is we'll never know the outcome of a Trump-Biden battle in a non-Covid world. But I respectfully suggest that those underestimating how economy drives things are mistaken. The Ronald Reagan question to voters back in 1980 - "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" - just pulverized Carter and decided that election. Without Covid - and assuming no other unexpected economic foundation-rattler - there is every reason to believe that most voters would have answered Reagan's question in the affirmative (unlike they did 40 years ago), and voted accordingly. One lasting anecdote informs my opinion on this (apologies if this is a repeat). A young AA Lyft driver was taking me to the airport in New Orleans about a year ago. It was 5:30 a.m., and he shared what he was doing - working 2 regular jobs (flipping houses and driving) and looking to invest in a local bar with some co-investors. I was very impressed with his hustle. And then he offered, out of the blue, that "I know I'm supposed to not like Trump, and I don't want to have a beer with the guy. But he is good for my businesses. Things are hopping." The point is, when things are going well for folks economically, they tend to overlook other flaws, even big ones, in a candidate.
I don't know about a landslide - probably not. But I'm with Mick in thinking Trump wins without Covid, perhaps comfortably.
P.S. Not sure why folks give random polls so much credit, particularly in the Trump political world. Think it's pretty clear that many folks "get" that supporting Trump publicly in any fashion, including polls, can result in derision. So, they just prevaricate . . . and then they vote in private. This is perfectly understandable. What I have a much harder time "getting" is the 30K (or whatever the number is) of people who show up for a Trump rally. There is some degree of Trump adulation out there that is baffling for someone with hardly any (and that may be generous) personally redeeming qualities.
I'm perpetually optimistic about the people of the United States of America, so I am delighted with the outcome of the election. Trump I believe will be gone, but the public also put paid to Democratic radicalism. The Senate didn't flip. The Democrats lost ground in the House. Amazingly, on NPR news today (which my wife listens to), there was a positive story on nations in Europe which approve of Trump and aspects of his foreign policy (Poland, the Balkans want no part of Obama's multilateralism). It's the first positive story about Trump on NPR I've heard in a year. If President Biden picks up on some of the approaches of Trump that produced the prosperity and general placid world temperament of the last four years, he'll have a successful Administration.
The popular vote, in short, was a vote against the extremism to which both parties have become prey. As I am a moderate's moderate. I love the outcome.
No matter who the President, I ALWAYS hope for success. If you were to name the one characteristic of the TDS, it would be hoping for failure for Trump, no matter what the cost to the nation, just so Trump didn't succeed. That to me is repellant.
As for the current litigation, for gawd's sake, yes. Litigation that makes the current process more transparent and confirms the validity of ballots cast is beneficial. The only outcome of which I'd disapprove is one which disqualified ballots cast on or before November 3rd on technical legal grounds. That they may be counted later? Gimme a cookie. Covid made this an unusual election and some flexibility is required. There is already a paranoid ground swell of Trump supporters about late counted ballots, by people who give no thought to the mechanics that would be required to forge several hundred thousand ballots.
So litigate and clarify by all means. It can only help.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - BostonCard - 11-05-2020
Given that the margin of victory will likely come down to less than 1 percentage point in the tipping point state, you might even be able to argue that Trump would have won had he had not contracted COVID-19, let alone had there not been a pandemic. I don't think he would have won in a blowout, but he could have easily captured the states he won in 2016 plus Nevada and Minnesota, say.
But also there is an alternative universe where the Comey letter doesn't come out in October 2016, and 100,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are shifted to Clinton, and now we are looking at President Hillary Clinton losing her re-election campaign in a landslide.
BC
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - BostonCard - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 12:50 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: I'm going to join the chorus of 'Trump wins without covid'. In fact, I believe that one of the reasons for all the nonsense he spouted about Covid was frustration at having some of the genuine progress of the economy under his administration erased by the virus - which, typically, he was too narcissistic to accept.
I'm going to push back against the framing, because it really should be "Trump wins but for his response to COVID". To suggest that COVID is something that happened to his presidency and not something whose trajectory was influenced by his response seems a bit misguided. Hell, Trump probably wins even with COVID being about as bad as it is, but showing a little empathy towards the people who suffered from it, and if he had actually managed to mount a competent response, Trump would have won in a landslide. Then the narrative becomes "Trump may be a bit unconventional, but when faced with a crisis, he rose to the occasion." Just look at Jocinda Ardern in New Zealand, who was actually trailing in polls before the pandemic hit, and won in a landslide.
BC
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - oldalum - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 12:50 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: No matter who the President, I ALWAYS hope for success. If you were to name the one characteristic of the TDS, it would be hoping for failure for Trump, no matter what the cost to the nation, just so Trump didn't succeed. That to me is repellant.Two questions for the board:
The Urban Dictionary, where I sometimes go for hip things I don't know (i.e. all of them) says TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) means worshipping Trump as in a cult; does it now mean the opposite, or both? (I really don't know, I'm asking)
And does anyone have any data from surveys or whatever about the prevalence of anti-trump TDS? I keep reading on this board about the terrible people who wish ill on the country just so Trump does badly and won't get re-elected, but do we have any idea how many people really think this way? Anyone on this board? My impression is that there are some extremists who say stuff like this, but is that all there is? Are there social media stars with large followings, who tweet something along those lines and get a million likes for the comment? Anyone who thinks the pandemic is actually a great thing because it (or Trump's mishandling of it) is what tipped the election over to Biden? Again, I don't know, I'm just asking, because it seems like I read these about these awful people here not infrequently, and I'm skeptical it's really a large number (I too am generally optimistic about the American people). But I'm open to learning differently.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - Leftcoast - 11-05-2020
In my experience TDS is the exact opposite of what you got from the Urban Dictionary. Turns out the term has its own wikipedia page with the definition I've come to expect:
"Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term for criticism or negative reactions to United States President Donald Trump that are perceived to be irrational, and have little regard towards Trump's actual policy positions, or actions undertaken by his administration.[2] The term has mainly been used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of his actions, as a way of reframing the discussion by suggesting that his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world.[3][1][4] Journalists have used the term to call for restraint when judging Trump's statements and actions.[5][6][7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - oregontim - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 02:50 PM)oldalum Wrote: And does anyone have any data from surveys or whatever about the prevalence of anti-trump TDS? I keep reading on this board about the terrible people who wish ill on the country just so Trump does badly and won't get re-elected, but do we have any idea how many people really think this way? Anyone on this board? My impression is that there are some extremists who say stuff like this, but is that all there is? Are there social media stars with large followings, who tweet something along those lines and get a million likes for the comment? Anyone who thinks the pandemic is actually a great thing because it (or Trump's mishandling of it) is what tipped the election over to Biden? Again, I don't know, I'm just asking, because it seems like I read these about these awful people here not infrequently, and I'm skeptical it's really a large number (I too am generally optimistic about the American people). But I'm open to learning differently.
OldAlum, I think your comment here hits a nerve, a strange phenomenon of recent divisive times. It's a reminder of how often we have one side of our tribal division describing the alleged thoughts of the other. Conservatives pronouncing what liberals think, and vice versa. That's quite common these days.
I think TDS applied as wishing the country harm because it's bad for Trump is a figment of Trump supporters' imaginations.
And I think the Wikipedia entry above (thanks Leftcoast) agrees with me on this.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - terry - 11-05-2020
This thread is way too political. It doesn't belong on the board, IMO.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - Mick - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 03:14 PM)oregontim Wrote: I think TDS applied as wishing the country harm because it's bad for Trump is a figment of Trump supporters' imaginations.
And I think the Wikipedia entry above (thanks Leftcoast) agrees with me on this.
Bill Maher (net worth: $100 million) publicly hoped (for two years) for a recession to bring down Trump. NBC News' Richard Engel said the same thing.
FWLIW, The Atlantic disagrees:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/dont-root-for-a-recession/596500/
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - OutsiderFan - 11-05-2020
This thread needs to die. So much wasted time accomplishing nothing useful.
Sort of like the frivolous lawsuits being filed to stop or keep counting votes depending on which state it is and how the count is perceived to be going.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - oregontim - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 08:25 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I'll give two examples, both related to Latino voters, who seem to have shifted significantly towards Trump. The aims of the BLM movement are noble, and many of their policy goals will benefit anyone, including Latino voters, who encounters the police. But how do you think imagery of Che Guevara, who, ideology aside, was objectively a murderous despot, particularly to Cuban emigres in South Florida, plays? Secondly, something like 90% of people of Latino descent have never heard of the term "Latinx", don't know how to pronounce it, feel it wipes out their heritage, and sure as hell don't want to be told who they are by a liberal elite. Now, I get that gendered language is problematic for some people, but you can't impose a fix from above. In some ways, those are trivial examples. But they are very representative of the attitudes of progressives to the people they believe should naturally support them
BC
I'm very close to the Mexican vote, as in married 50 years to my Mexican wife, so five half-Mexican kids, fluent Spanish, 10 years in Mexico City, etc. I'd like to add to the above (not dispute it, but maybe clarify from a Mexican point of view) that the Mexican (Americans of Mexican ancestry) voters hate Donald Trump for good reason. That shows in the votes from California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. I keep in close touch with a large family of in-laws, and they hate Trump without exceptions. Not surprising at all, considering his opening salvo ("criminals and rapists"), his textbook racism against judge Curiel, and the whole wall fiasco.
What is surprising, and is in fact the phenomenon you BC reference, is the Latino vote in southern Florida. I've had dealings with the Cuban community there off and on for years, and I'm pretty sure that is exactly what you refer to. That community is very emotional about Cuba, Castro, and communism. I think some of them — and Biden still got 55% of Miami, a majority, but less than Clinton's 64% — let anti-communism, founded or not, inform their votes.
By the way, what you say about the word "Latinx" matches what I hear from the Mexicans I know. To them it's a curiosity, an overabundance of accommodation that's not needed or asked for. The singular has gender, as in Latina or Latino, but the plural is Latinos if it's both genders, Latinas if it's only women. Spanish speaking women are not offended by that fundamental of the language, So I hear.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - Genuine Realist - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 08:25 AM)BostonCard Wrote:Amen, except you've forgotten the profound anti-Catholic bigotry that has infected the Democratic Party. If Rubio had become the Republican nominee in 2016, he would have become President, and the Democrats would know what real trouble they're in. They assume that the Latino vote is just naturally going to become Democratic and that simply does not follow.(11-05-2020, 03:41 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote:(11-04-2020, 11:30 PM)Mick Wrote: - While I wouldn't wish a pandemic on anyone -- obviously -- keep in mind that without a once-in-a-century pandemic, Trump likely wins in a landslide.I never understand the Trump worship and adulation. I get that some people have an incentive to want lower taxes or fewer regulations for their business, or put up with him — a thrice married, lying, mysoginist and 6 times bankrupt businessman — for judges who will enforce their religious views on the entire population, but those people view Trump as a means to an ends. I can never understand how people actually look at him and adore him. The only explanation I can think of is that Trump is very effective at psychological control and brainwashing. I read somewhere that he has studied hypnosis techniques and uses them in business and media.
A lot of people in America who think that the two major parties have ignored them and that their government simply doesn't work for them have heard Trump speak their language and vow to give them a voice they have never had before. I've always been an admirer of Obama, but keep in mind that under his watch, Wall Street was bailed out while millions of Americans were foreclosed upon. Under his nose, tens of thousands of Americans were dying from opioid overdose seemingly without anyone doing anything about it. Now, I understand that these problems are complex, and I think Trump's response to COVID suggest he would have been no better at handling the opioid epidemic (with overdose deaths flat since his innauguration, which, to be fair, is better than the previous trend).
Secondly, to us (mostly well educated, white collar workers), the economy really didn't change all that much when Trump became president. The trend that started in the aftermath of the financial crisis more or less continued linearly. For people at the lower end of the income spectrum, making close to minimum wage, there actually was a step-change starting in around 2018. At that point, the labor market finally became tight, and employers were forced to start increasing wages. I don't think you can attribute that to Trump, but its not like the Obama administration (somewhat forced by the Republican congress) and the fed at the time, committed some own goals on the economy. Trump was right (policy-wise) to hound the fed to keep interest rates low. Trump was right to push fiscal stimulus (even though I disagree with how he did it).
All that being said, I think progressives need to be better at listening to what the people they purport to represent want, rather than presuming to know better, or, at the very least, explain why their policy preferences are better for average Americans instead of presuming that this is somehow self-evident and sneering at them for not somehow managing to understand by magic.
I'll give two examples, both related to Latino voters, who seem to have shifted significantly towards Trump. The aims of the BLM movement are noble, and many of their policy goals will benefit anyone, including Latino voters, who encounters the police. But how do you think imagery of Che Guevara, who, ideology aside, was objectively a murderous despot, particularly to Cuban emigres in South Florida, plays? Secondly, something like 90% of people of Latino descent have never heard of the term "Latinx", don't know how to pronounce it, feel it wipes out their heritage, and sure as hell don't want to be told who they are by a liberal elite. Now, I get that gendered language is problematic for some people, but you can't impose a fix from above. In some ways, those are trivial examples. But they are very representative of the attitudes of progressives to the people they believe should naturally support them.
I would suggest more listening and less sneering.
BC
Trump's America, by the way, is the same as Obama's America which was the same as the earlier America's. Nothing chaned in the twinkling of an eye in November of 2016.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - BostonCard - 11-05-2020
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ChazNuttycombe/status/1324267534057639937?s=20[/tweet]
Latinos as a whole (despite being a heterogeneous bunch) will still prefer Biden over Trump, but I think Trump has made significant inroads over 2016. Yes, in South Florida, but also in South Texas, New Mexico Eastern Colorado, and parts of Arizona. So, it is not just Cuban refugees.
Democrats would be wise not to take Latinos for granted (and Republicans wise not to write them off).
BC
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - Genuine Realist - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 01:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote:Oh,I accept that emendation with applause. For any politician except one with a narcissistic personality disorder, covid is deliverance from Heaven. All you have to do is say 'there, there' and cheerlead. You announce this accelerated vaccine program, and leave the rest to local government. You can't lose.(11-05-2020, 12:50 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: I'm going to join the chorus of 'Trump wins without covid'. In fact, I believe that one of the reasons for all the nonsense he spouted about Covid was frustration at having some of the genuine progress of the economy under his administration erased by the virus - which, typically, he was too narcissistic to accept.
I'm going to push back against the framing, because it really should be "Trump wins but for his response to COVID". To suggest that COVID is something that happened to his presidency and not something whose trajectory was influenced by his response seems a bit misguided. Hell, Trump probably wins even with COVID being about as bad as it is, but showing a little empathy towards the people who suffered from it, and if he had actually managed to mount a competent response, Trump would have won in a landslide. Then the narrative becomes "Trump may be a bit unconventional, but when faced with a crisis, he rose to the occasion." Just look at Jocinda Ardern in New Zealand, who was actually trailing in polls before the pandemic hit, and won in a landslide.
BC
Unless you're Donald Trump. Then you take everything personally.
(11-05-2020, 03:35 PM)Mick Wrote:i was going to mention Maher.(11-05-2020, 03:14 PM)oregontim Wrote: I think TDS applied as wishing the country harm because it's bad for Trump is a figment of Trump supporters' imaginations.
And I think the Wikipedia entry above (thanks Leftcoast) agrees with me on this.
Bill Maher (net worth: $100 million) publicly hoped (for two years) for a recession to bring down Trump. NBC News' Richard Engel said the same thing.
FWLIW, The Atlantic disagrees:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/dont-root-for-a-recession/596500/
But apart from wishing disaster, there was a chronic, and I would say pathological, overestimate of the 'evil' that Trump would do. Right after the 2016 election, there was a spate of books that predicted that would be the last election in US history, that this was the neginning of a Fascist takeover. These were serious intellectuals - Lawrence Tribe for one.
And bringing this back to Covid, some of the drastic measures suggested now for Covid, if implemented in late January-February, before the public was alert, would have been decried by the media as a pretext for the seizure. The Reichstag Fire would have been cited.
TDS basically consists of the notion that nothing that happened during the Trump Administration was at all good or purposeful, and that he personally is not capable of one good impulse - that he is at base, not simply self-centered, but Evil - and in that hyperbolic sense, it is absurd.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - 82lsju - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 05:48 AM)fullmetal Wrote: There's a pretty significant number of conservative Christian voters (across all ethnic backgrounds) who think that Trump's anti-abortion stance is sufficient for their votes (identity politics). (Are there more SCOTUS seats in play through 2024? Huh.)
That's where their analysis starts and stops. And their churches encourage this (despite tax-exempt status).
Breyer is 82
Thomas is 72
Alito is 70
Sotomayor is 66
Roberts is 65
Kagan is 60
Kavanaugh is 55
Gorsuch is 53
Barrett is 48
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - Snorlax94 - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 11:32 AM)teejers1 Wrote: 1. Mick, I admire your tenacity in even bothering to respond to Snorlax, who perfectly encapsulates the back hand of the Elitists who "just know better."
2. The bottom line is we'll never know the outcome of a Trump-Biden battle in a non-Covid world. But I respectfully suggest that those underestimating how economy drives things are mistaken...
I don't know about a landslide - probably not. But I'm with Mick in thinking Trump wins without Covid, perhaps comfortably.
I would point out that despite your response, on substance, our points were actually quite similar. I really went after the idea that "Trump probably wins in a landslide..." because, like you, I think we just don't know. Maybe Trump wins comfortably without Covid. But I'd also argue that the #BLM protests could have played an even bigger role in the election, which could have led to the flipping of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona anyway. And if there were no Covid, the biggest story of the year may have been the wildfires in Australia and the wildfires in California, and so Global Warming may have been an even bigger issue. So, we just don't know, and you, probably like I, find the statement "Trump probably wins in a landslide" to be a dubious one.
Additionally, we agree that the economy is a powerful determinant of who wins the economy, and I pointed out, I find it reasonable that some people support Trump because they have an economic incentive to do so.
And you may dislike how I speculate that Trump is using mind-control type of psychological techniques to control his adoring fans, but even you say " What I have a much harder time "getting" is the 30K (or whatever the number is) of people who show up for a Trump rally. There is some degree of Trump adulation out there that is baffling for someone with hardly any (and that may be generous) personally redeeming qualities." My point being, the "adoring" fans are inexplicable to you, as well, and even Trump supporters like Scott Adams pointed out in 2016 that Trump would win because Trump was a master of using hypnosis techniques.
But like Terry, I agree that "This thread is way too political. It doesn't belong on the board, IMO."
So in the spirit of bipartisanship, I recommend an old debate workplace technique -- on this thread, which is so political in nature, from this point on we continue to comment on this thread *only* to make points that support the other side, which I will now do.
First, in terms of "elitism" and the mistreatment of non-college educated people, I agree there is a problem. For example, when I was a child, two of the most popular shows in America were Hee Haw and Donnie and Marie, which were both celebrations of rural life and country music. And as I got older, my brother and I loved "The Dukes of Hazzard." Clearly, things like the use of the Confederate flag and anything remotely pro-slavery is condemnable, but at its core, I think the theme of two good 'ol boys never meaning no harm, outwitting the local corrupt politician and his inept sheriff, is a universal, fun theme that I think all kinds of people -- city folks and country folks -- would enjoy today. I don't know what happened because I find a lot of media today so divisive, but my corrective suggestion would be to call out mean-spirited, derogatory characterizations of southerners and rural people in a similar matter to how we call out racist characterizations. I find all of these kinds of jokes -- that make fun of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, or education-level -- unfunny, cheap, and mean-spirited. You mean you can't think of anything to make fun of besides a person's skin color, gender, or accent (whether foreign or southern)? Shows that demean southerners with cheap jokes should be called out, and shows that demean city folks with cheap jokes should be called out.
Second, I agree that we are in a brobdingnagian period of economic upheaval and many people are being left behind. But, we've known there's a crisis for many decades, it's not like we "don't understand" there's a problem, and it's not like either party doesn't care. I remember when President George HW Bush talked about the need to lift up the economic lives of all Americans as the world globalized, and he pointed to the European model of apprenticeships for highly-skilled jobs as a model. And nothing happened, things just got worse. Bill Clinton also talked about apprenticeship programs, but with the explosion of the Internet, the rift accelerated. George W Bush campaigned on the common, Joe six-pack man, and nothing got done (in fact, the chasm between the haves and have-nots probably grew at its fastest during this time). I know people who interacted with the Obama administration, and Obama also frantically tried to help the plight of people on the losing end of globalization and the economic shifts. Obama had dinner with Apple's CEO cajoling them to bring more manufacturing back to the US. And with Trump, especially in 2017, he sometimes pressured manufacturers to keep jobs in the US, and has also pressured Chinese companies to shift more manufacturing to the US, but often only by Twitter, in a one-off, case by case basis. So, I'd say I disagree that presidents of either party are somehow unaware of this and are ignoring it. Economics (and tech) is my background, so, I'd argue this is reasonably in my lane. I actually disagree with solutions like "we should listen more." Because, it is a very hard problem, and people have been aware of this and presidents from both parties have been trying for decades. If someone solved it, they'd be a shoe-in for re-election and would be a hero. Part of the problem is that, arguably, all incumbents have been too beholden to the corporations that benefit from one-sided globalization. Also, pretty much every president has talked about turning around manufacturing, and *delivering* a strategic plan to turn things around, but no president has made it a priority and pushed on Congress to pass it. A criticism of Republican solutions is that Tweets do nothing to solve the underlying problems, and tax cuts, deregulations and the Citizens United case ("corporations are people, too") just make corporations more powerful to look out only for themselves. A criticism of Democrats' solutions is that they are too much in-bed with big tech companies, and unemployment supplements and one-time construction programs are just one-time payments. People want jobs that lead to careers, financial security and pride, not payments and salves.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - Goose - 11-05-2020
(11-05-2020, 05:48 AM)fullmetal Wrote: There's a pretty significant number of conservative Christian voters (across all ethnic backgrounds) who think that Trump's anti-abortion stance is sufficient for their votes (identity politics). (Are there more SCOTUS seats in play through 2024? Huh.)As much as I attempt to fight this idea, it is unfortunately true. There are a significant number of people who simply will not vote for anyone who doesn't want to overturn Roe vs. Wade. That is where it starts and ends for those voters.
That's where their analysis starts and stops. And their churches encourage this (despite tax-exempt status).
I do however believe there is an even more serious problem demonstrated in this election. I fear that most people were voting AGAINST the other candidate, not voting FOR the one for which they cast their vote. I am one of those voters. Biden would not normally have any chance of gaining my vote. His positions (in so far as we actually know them) on most issues do not match mine. He got my vote because I have believed all along that Trump had no business even being NEAR the presidency, let alone holding it. Biden is at least a functioning adult and as far as I know an honest man. Trump is neither IMHO. I know their are plenty of Trump voters that are fully aware of how bad Trump is, but they really abhor what the believe Biden stands for socially and/or economically. Thus their vote AGAINST Biden despite the fact the consider Trump as "less than ideal". The R v W voters can be considered in this category.
The problem is that we cannot have a democracy based on what we are against. It has to be based on what we are for. As a Republican, if we had offered a decent candidate (instead of Trump) we probably could have won in a landslide, or at least forced Biden to actually campaign on issues. What could have been. I just hope that both parties can generate some candidates with real principles and real ideas that have some leadership ability. FWIW, I would have preferred Obama to Biden, and that is saying a lot.
It will be interesting to see Biden's approach to working with the Senate on COVID-19 legislation. I really hope Biden is able to get some kind of a working consensus on things where their is substantial agreement, and that he stays away from issues for which that is not the case, at least initially. We need to do some things to restore the economy while killing "as few people as possible" in the attempt. Sad it has reached that point, but IMHO it unfortubnately has. We are in search of a viable solution. An optimal one is probably beyond our grasp at this point.
RE: It Ain't Over Til It's Over - Farm93 - 11-05-2020
Bringing this back to COVID -
WorldoMeters noted the USA had 118,204 new cases.
Just last week we were sitting in the 90,000 range daily. So that is a 30+% increase week to week.
I love our democracy, and thankfully there were few long voting lines on election day, but we had big lines in early voting. My guess/fear is that we are going to see the impact of our election on our COVID cases over the next several days. I understand why those with COVID had the right to participate in our voting process on Tuesday, but wow....
I sure wish POTUS45 encouraged those with COVID and those that should have been in quarantine to get absentee ballots and drop them in drop boxes. Obviously that wasn't going to happen, but I wish it happened.
COVID19 isn't going away, that story will return to the top of the headlines soon enough.